screaming-frog-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific data (crawl names, Database IDs, sizes) and mentions the Database ID's use with other tools, but does not cover behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by output details and usage guidance in two additional sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and how to use its output, but lacks details on behavioral traits like performance or limitations. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output usage. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('List all crawls'), resource ('saved in Screaming Frog's internal database'), and scope ('all crawls'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing rather than crawling, deleting, exporting, or reading data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to get crawl names, Database IDs, and sizes, and explicitly states to use the Database ID with export_crawl or delete_crawl. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or explicitly compare it to alternatives like storage_summary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.